Admin at 12:37, 12 January 2017

2017-01-12T12:37:07Z

Admin: Created page with "{{DISPLAYTITLE: The Risk Ontology}} == The LEADing Practice Risk Ontology == The Risk Ontology presented in this publication has taken over a decade to research and develop, w..."

2017-01-12T12:13:11Z

Created page with "{{DISPLAYTITLE: The Risk Ontology}} == The LEADing Practice Risk Ontology == The Risk Ontology presented in this publication has taken over a decade to research and develop, w..."

New page

{{DISPLAYTITLE: The Risk Ontology}}
== The LEADing Practice Risk Ontology ==
The Risk Ontology presented in this publication has taken over a decade to research and develop, with hundreds of ‘man years’ involved to create the product you have in your hands now. This publication elaborates on the journey to research and develop this risk ontology as well as it described in detail of what it is. It explains the need for a risk ontology, helps to remedy the inconsistent use of risk objects, terms and models. It provides researched benchmarked risk terms and definitions, enabling practitioners to map them to their various ways of working and modelling.

Standards bodies like ISO, CEN, OMG, OASIS, and other practitioner organisations have documented vast amounts of business knowledge as frameworks (e.g., TOGAF, ITIL and COBIT), methods and or approaches (e.g. LEAN, Six Sigma, BPR, TQM, BPMN, BPMS, VDML). Each of these standards, frameworks, methods, and approaches have their own vocabulary, and hence definition of terms like activities, events, role, actors, owner, measure or even rule. This semantic heterogeneity might hamper mutual understanding, communication and artefact integration between standards bodies and organisations applying their standards . What is needed is a unified ontology and vocabulary for business that is rigorously built according to academic and industry standards and at the same time sufficiently detailed to be immediately applicable by practitioners in areas such as business modelling.

This paper introduces a Risk Domain Ontology, which from now on will be referred to as the ‘Risk Ontology’, which incorporates various constructs that can be found in risk standards and frameworks. As ontologies, of which a vocabulary is an immature stage, can be constructed rigorously, the artefact presented below is a domain ontology. By providing benchmark terms and definitions and mapping those terms and definitions to the terms in other existing framework’s vocabularies, this risk ontology is expected to help remedy the inconsistent use of terms around risk management, risk modelling, risk engineering, and risk architecture disciplines. As these mappings demonstrate the shared use of terms in the risk ontology and several business standards and reference frameworks, we could argue that the risk ontology documents the dominant business vocabulary, while mitigating semantic heterogeneity, identifying vocabulary overlap (e.g., the same word that is used in both standards) and signalling complementarity (e.g., a concept that is present in one standard and not in another) between business standards.

The risk ontology is being formalised using the Global University Alliance risk research, the LEADing Practice Risk Standards and communicating it in the Object Management Group’s (OMG) Meta-Object Facility (MOF) concept, and structure, of which the core is also available as an ISO standard. MOF provides a framework for defining meta-models for data, modelling and programming languages as well as describing concepts. The several ontology definition formats (e.g. RDF, OWL, Common Logic) have been defined in MOF through the Ontology Definition Meta-model (ODM) . As MOF has also been used to define UML, it allows for the creation of ontology-based domains-specific modelling languages. As MOF also defines the XML Metadata Interchange (XMI) standard recognised by ISO, it allows for a transformation of any instance of MOF to an XML format for online exchange and digital sharing. Like XML, RDF and OWL, which are W3C web standards. Through the Interface Definition Language (IDL), MOF also integrates with programming languages (e.g., C++, Java), which would allow for ontology-based programming.

As many other business modelling specifications (e.g., VDML, BPMN, SBVR ) have been formalised in MOF a formalisation of the risk ontology will facilitate the mapping between them. This will be present in the following way in this publication. Firstly, how the research and findings came about through the Global University Alliance. The research team, the research questions as well as the risk framework, methods, approaches and concepts studies. The publication and papers researched and how folksonomy concepts where used to define risk, identify and describe the most common meta objects used within Risk concepts. This includes what are the most common terms around the risk object classes, stereo types and subtypes. In addition, we will discuss how Semantic concepts where used to capture and define the most common structure and relationships.

Enterprise Modelling, Engineering and Architecture concepts were applied to identify the most common Risk Models. This includes using the LEADing Practice decomposition and composition standard to identify where do the objects and the specific relations appear in various models. This is seen as a huge benefit as the risk concepts can then be applied back to various modelling standards such as process modelling, value modelling, rule modelling as well as enterprise architecture concepts such as business architecture, application architecture and technology architecture. It is also in the risk model that the objects involved with ‘possible risk’ and those with ‘actual risk’ are specified.

After that the risk meta models are presented, with clear defined hierarchic relationships that allow of a polymorphic inheritance of properties in the meta models. Followed by the outlining and description of the meta meta model, with all its objects, relations which all the risk ontology aspects conform to. The Risk Ontology lessons learned and its advantages are summarized in the final section. We hope you have as much joy reading it as we have had writing it.

=== Understanding the changes in the market ===

[[File:Why the ‘Agile Enterprise’ is so important - Figure 1.png|thumb|800px|left|alt=Figure 1: The four phases of the industrial revolution and the innovation potential.|Figure 1: The four phases of the industrial revolution and the innovation potential.]]

'''Document''': [[Media:An-Introduction-to-the-Business-Ontology.pdf|Download the An Introduction to the Business Ontology document]]

[[Category: Business Ontology]]

LEAD Reference Content:Introduction to Business Ontology - Revision history

Admin at 12:37, 12 January 2017

Admin: Created page with "{{DISPLAYTITLE: The Risk Ontology}} == The LEADing Practice Risk Ontology == The Risk Ontology presented in this publication has taken over a decade to research and develop, w..."